<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>So, so, in practice...</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">el<br><br>-- <div>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5c</div></div><div><br>On 16 Mar 2016, at 06:51, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p dir="ltr">Actually in practice, "one of the designator" does not apply because we only have one(sole) designator as per the CCWG proposal. So what you are saying would logical been logical if applied to the designator which in context would be the community.</p>
<p dir="ltr">However I think the final proposal applies the inspection right to each decisional SO/AC which implies there is really no community thing (threshold) for inspection(para35 Annex 1) as it can be exercised by each individual SO/AC but within the scope described in para32</p>
<p dir="ltr">Overall I guess the ship has sailed on this one so we should not dwell further on it.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 16 Mar 2016 03:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:14:41AM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> I agree with the result the Board came to (at least in part), but not the<br>
> reasoning.<br>
<br>
[…]<br>
<br>
> exercise its powers through the Designator. As a practical matter, this<br>
> can be solved by having any of the SOs or ACs exercise the inspection<br>
> right, so we're covered that way.)<br>
<br>
Since the bylaws don't contain the reasoning for why a particular<br>
arrangement happens, but instead just contains the arrangement, what<br>
difference does it make the reasons people have to believe the<br>
conclusion we seem to be reaching? I like the emphasis on the<br>
practical matter: let's find a way to make the outcome right.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that making inspection a community power rather than<br>
one of the designator rather improves the value of inspection to the<br>
community, so we should embrace that conclusion (regardess of why<br>
people think it's the right one) and move on.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>